Cricket

[Janny]

There's a giant gulf between the quality of the teams who play regularly, the ten he mentioned, and those who don't play regularly. To say a team is rubbish means rubbish in relation to the other nine teams, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't thrash the proverbial pants of the 'non test playing' nations.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

The Ozzies have been dominating but England are slowly gaining constant good results against them. I wouldn't consider West Indies as one of the Worlds best anymore. They have been slowly declining recently and are fining it hard to get a result against any of what would be consdiered as the dominant teams the World at the moment.

[The Gaffer]

So, the mighty England juggernaut rumbles towards a record eighth successive Test victory.

Given that all of the others were either at home or against the West Indies, this looks like a credible performance.

Can they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and lose 8 wickets for 40 runs?
Are they good enough to win the Ashes back this summer? (Australia having just humped Pakistan by about a zillion runs)
Will Michael Vaughan overcome the Curse of the Captaincy and manage to score some runs on this tour? He looked like he was going to in the summer, but wait...

[Fenir_LacDanan]

My oath Gaffer. Australia just totally flogged the Paki's, bowling them out for 80 odd, when they were chasing 500 runs.

And I did see the england / SA on TV, and the poms looked good against a good team at their country, so it was a good win.

But one must say that its gonna take the Aussie first and second XI's to die in tragic freak yatching accidents to stop the Ashes being Australian once more.

[The Gaffer]

I suspect you're right; I don't think this squad are quite the finished article yet: I don't think they've got a really consistent offensive bowler and too many batsmen getting out to silly shots.

However, they do seem to have put behind them the traditional English cricket habit of getting into a good position then throwing it all away. Having home advantage should even things up a bit.

Can't wait. Tickets are already sold out for some of the Ashes Tests. Am pretty pissed that they seem to have dropped the traditional game against Combined Universities, which was usually held just down the road and you could just wander down of an afternoon and neck some booze while shouting at/with Aussies.

What more could a man ask for?

Sadly in these days of maximising revenue stream opportunities, a civilised game in the Parks on a hazy summer afternoon with a few hundred spectators just doesn't cut it I guess.

PS - some people consider "paki" an offensive term here.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I agree about the finished team Gaffer. Flintoff is a good example of the batsmen problem. He's haveing a good game but play one silly shot to many and is out. I think our bowling has greatly improved recently though.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I suspect you're right; I don't think this squad are quite the finished article yet: I don't think they've got a really consistent offensive bowler and too many batsmen getting out to silly shots.

However, they do seem to have put behind them the traditional English cricket habit of getting into a good position then throwing it all away. Having home advantage should even things up a bit.

Can't wait. Tickets are already sold out for some of the Ashes Tests. Am pretty pissed that they seem to have dropped the traditional game against Combined Universities, which was usually held just down the road and you could just wander down of an afternoon and neck some booze while shouting at/with Aussies.

What more could a man ask for?

Sadly in these days of maximising revenue stream opportunities, a civilised game in the Parks on a hazy summer afternoon with a few hundred spectators just doesn't cut it I guess.

PS - some people consider "paki" an offensive term here.

Yeah it is a shame that they aren't playing University anymore. I think they still play some of the county sides though.

And P.P.S. - Some people I know also consider "Aussie" an offensive term, and all it is is an abbreviated form of the full name Australian. Just like Paki(stanians), eh?

[The Gaffer]

Really? Wasn't aware of that.

My guess is it's probably not just like "Paki" in that I bet they haven't had petrol poured through their letter box and set light by people using the term. Also, you certainly don't get that impression when you hear Australian supporters chanting "Come on Aussie" etc.

Where I grew up (West of Scotland) it was used as a pretty innocent term with no negative connotations (indeed, if anything, positive, as the "Paki shop" was the only place open on New Year's Day to buy fags). I guess it's one of those terms which has gained negative connotations because of the way people have used it; things are probably different where you are (Ireland or Australia?).

Back to England though: I agree that their bowling is much tighter and more consistent than it used to be. Even when they're bowling badly they seem to keep it on a line and length much better than of old.

There was an interesting interview with Freddy a while back in which it emerged that he'd thought of himself as a "backup" bowler rather than as a strike bowler. Much of their progress is down to a change in mentality towards a more confident and aggressive outlook. Oh, that and all those times that Freddy single-handedly destroys the opposition bowling attack.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

: Hey Gaff, did you see the Aussies pump the Paki(stanians)'s by 9 wickets yesterday?

Oh, I assume that you where still busy watching S.A. flog your poor arses, after all.

OY YEAH. THE POMS ARE GONNA WIN THE ASHES :rolleyes

[The Gaffer]

Bwahahaha.

We should really thank the South Africans as I think much of the optimism was misplaced and they have a lot of work to do if they are to challenge the Aus(tralian)ies seriously. They are still short of a genuine class bowler and Harmison is dire away from home (2 wickets in 3 tests or something).

Still, with Harmison firing on all cylinders at home, they do have a chance, which is more than could have been said at any time over the last 10 years.

[Nurvingiel]

Okay... forgive the giant cricket n00b question... especially if you already answered this somewhere... but would anyone care to explain cricket scoring to me?

The reason I ask is I want to start a game of Pub Cricket the next time I go on a road-trip. In Pub Cricket, you get points every time you drive by a pub. The person on the left side of the car gets the ones on the left, pubs on the right go to the person sitting on the right.

Scoring is based on how many legs is on the pub's sign.

If the pub is called "The Boar's Head", and has a picture of... a boar's head on the sign. 0 legs.

If it's "The Mason's Arms" with a mason on it, 2 legs.

If it's "The Horse and Hounds" with 1 horse and 2 dogs, that's 12 legs.

The legs have to be on the sign to count. Now, if you pass "The Horse and Hound" it's like you scored 12 runs in cricket. (At once.) You probably get more than 12 points for that eh? That's why I need scoring knowledge.

Cheers in advance.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Okay... forgive the giant cricket n00b question... especially if you already answered this somewhere... but would anyone care to explain cricket scoring to me?

Cheers in advance.

Cricket is a game made up of eleven players, in which opposing teams alternate between batting and fielding, with the ultimate aim of scoring more runs than the other side.
Runs are only scored by the batting side, and they usually are scored by a shot or stroke off the batsman agains a bowler. Their can be other minor ways of accumulation runs, and these are called "sundries" or "extras", but they really arent what your asking, and they are a little confusing.

So.

Basically, the bowler comes thundering in and flings the ball at the batsman, and the batsman hits it with his bat. Then, if he can, (because to have the wicket hit with the ball whilst you are outside your crease, or about a meter and a half from the wicket, means your "run out") the batsman runs up the pitch to the other end, thus scoring a run.
If it is still safe, i.e., the fielders are still chasing the ball he has just struck, the batsman can run up and then down the pitch, thus scoring two, and so on.
And if the ball is struck with such force that it reaches the rope, (the boundary of the field of play, which is usually a rope, hence the name) then the batsman is awarded four runs (a four) for the stroke. And again if the ball is struck with such force so as to be hit over the rope on the full, then he is awarded six runs (a six).

This goes on through out the day, with usually everyone in the team getting a bat, untill the team is bowled out.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks Fenir! So if I understand you correctly, you get one point for each run (going from the wicket to the other end of the pitch, or back), a four for hitting the ball to the rope, and a six for hitting the ball over the rope.
I didn't know there was 11 players, and it didn't occur to me to ask before! I'm suddenly struck by the urge to watch a live cricket match...

Now I'm confused about Pub Cricket though, I can only match up the scoring system to one point per leg, but it seemed more complicated than that.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Well I've played Australian beer cricket, and its a blast. has little to do with actual cricket, though...

The number of cans of beer consumed leads to your individual run total, and you have "outs" when you have to let nature take its course, shall we say. So After 8 beers or so, you could be 1 for 85 off 6 (or three hours, an over equalling 1 half hour). It can be quite fun, and you will most certianly get quite drunk.
Its also a usefull way to make sure everyone is drinking (or scoring) his share for the benifit of the team.

Its good to hear that your intrested in the game, though if you decide to watch a real game on tv, I STRONGLY advise you to watch a limited overs match, alternativley known as a "one daya" by my australian hosts. A test match can last for five days and can drag on a bit, but a one day game has much MUCH more action.

Cheers.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Oh, and Gaff, I read in today's paper that the T.A.B., the sports betting body in Australia, is offering some good odds for the up coming Ashes series in merry England.

Australia is paying $2.20, while England is paying a staggering $8.70 to take out the series.

Now you know I don't think England has got the goods to beat the Aussies, but given that the $8.70 is a hell of a paying number, and Englands recent good form against S.A., I may just have to lay a $20 on your lads as a dark horse.

[The Gaffer]

Sounds worth a punt. Is that $8.70 from a 1$ bet??

[Andúril]

Apologies to the Brits for pwning j0os in this test. 173/6.

[The Gaffer]

Apology accepted, though I have no idea what pwning j0os is. We did get royally humped, if that's what you mean, and deservedly so by the better team.

Now we'll see what England are made of.

[Andúril]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Apology accepted, though I have no idea what pwning j0os is.

Pwning j0os = Owning you = beating/defeating you.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Sounds worth a punt. Is that $8.70 from a 1$ bet??

Oh yeah mate. Put on a hundred, make $870.00 back.

Carn the poms and all that. unless the term offends yet another group...